Liberal entrepreneur Elon Musk’s business ventures have benefited from nearly $5 billion in government subsidies in the past few years, but apparently that’s not enough taxpayer support to stop his electric car business from losing $4,000 on every vehicle it sells.

Tesla Motors “burned $359 million in cash last quarter in a bull market for luxury vehicles,” according to Reuters, causing the company to “cut its production targets for this year and next.” Musk may even be forced to sell more stock to help plug the gap in the company’s finances.

Reuters reported that “Tesla plans to build between 50,000 and 55,000 cars this year,” most of which are built-to-order. The company’s latest filings showed it “delivered 11,532 cars in the second period and said it had an operating loss of about $47 million, for an operating loss per car of about $4,000.”

Interestingly enough, Tesla’s losses may be much higher than the company reports. Reuters notes that using “generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, used by GM or Ford, Tesla’s operating losses per vehicle have steadily widened to $14,758 from $3,794 in the second quarter of 2014.”

In the last quarter, Tesla saw its operating costs increase and its car sales fell — right now a Tesla Model S goes for $70,000 before federal and state tax credits kick in. Depending on the type of Model S you buy, the price can actually be $106,000 or more.

Despite the huge losses, however, Musk plans on expanding the company’s production to include a new battery-powered SUV and get into the battery business. Earlier this year, Musk unveiled a line of expensive batteries that could be used to store energy from solar panels to be used when the sun goes down.

Musk clearly hopes the battery packs will revolutionize the green energy industry and urge more people to buy solar panels — something that would help his other business, SolarCity, which already benefits from federal tax credits. So far, most solar panel users have opted not to use Tesla’s batteries because they can sell their solar power to utilities for money.

News of Tesla’s huge losses comes after reports that Musk’s business ventures have benefited from $4.9 billion in federal and state government subsidies. Tesla Motors, where Musk is CEO, has gotten generous federal loans and benefits from state and federal tax credits encouraging people to buy electric cars.

“In all, Tesla buyers have qualified for an estimated $284 million in federal tax incentives and collected more than $38 million in California rebates,” the Los Angeles Times reported in May, adding that Tesla already secured “a commitment of $126 million in California subsidies to companies developing energy storage technology.”

The Times also noted that Tesla got $1.3 billion in benefits from the state of Nevada to build a battery factory.

Reuters noted that even with the huge losses last quarter “Tesla’s stock is still about 70 percent higher than it was two years ago, and 8 percent ahead of its level on Jan 1.” The company has a market capitalization of $31 billion, meaning the company is worth more than “Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV, the much larger maker of Ram pickups and Jeep Grand Cherokees.”

Follow Michael on Twitter

_________________The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

Yeah, I read an article earlier this summer indicating that Tesla was taking a huge beating. Looks like another "green energy" experiment in attempting to create a market for something before the technology to do it efficiently actually exists (assuming it ever will).

_________________Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?

Yeah, I read an article earlier this summer indicating that Tesla was taking a huge beating. Looks like another "green energy" experiment in attempting to create a market for something before the technology to do it efficiently actually exists (assuming it ever will).

Well, I'd anyday prefer an economy based on cars and power that didn't make us reliant on Russia, Saudis and their kind. Also I hate that our economies pump pure profit to those asshats dictatorships simply because of the type of tech we use and because they landed on most of those resources.

What I dream of is, imagine entire EU not buying a single drop of oil, gas or goal from outside. Imagine that..

What it would mean is that fuel would cost a lot less for americans because oil prices would sink to something like 5-10% of what they're now.

But yea, just because Flyer One wasn't very good and couldn't compete with shipping I don't think it was a bad idea to invest in emerging tech. By definition when you engage in R&D you first lose a lot of money.

As for Tesla.. Well, not sure if it was a great idea but then again if they can keep their operation going it might eventually pick off. You know Apple had a ton of difficulties and a lot of people wanted to close them down because they were doing so badly.

Not saying everyone who struggles will succeed, instead I'm saying that with this one I'll wait a bit longer before judging the entire electric car concept or Tesla Motors. I wouldn't put my money on it but I'm an interested observer.

_________________All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party

I have only a small doubt that in 50 years, vehicles powered by an electric battery instead of a "petroleum-distalate battery" may be viable . . . they may even be affordable, efficient and commonplace. But my understanding is that the best electric battery technology of today simply is not good enough to replace the standard petrol battery. Its a fools errand to try to force technology to develop in order to create a market instead of the other way round.

_________________Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?

Lawrence Solomon: How Tesla’s Elon Musk became the master of fake businessMusk’s genius is primarily in the subsidy-seeking realm. By 2015, U.S. governments alone had given his companies US$5 billion through direct grants, tax breaks, cut-rate loans, tax credits and rebates

The fastest-growing industries over the last two decades have been fake industries, those that thrive despite having few customers willing to buy their products except at fire-sale prices. The fake industries all have the same angel investors — governments — and the same promoter touting their wares — again governments. These fake industries, the brainchild of subsidy entrepreneurs, also tend to be dazzlers, the better to wow their politician backers and the stock market speculators betting on cash flows of government subsidies.

Today’s fake-industry leader is Tesla, the electric car developed by subsidy entrepreneur Elon Musk, who also heads SolarCity and SpaceX, other government darlings.Musk’s genius is primarily in the subsidy-seeking realm — by 2015, U.S. governments alone had given his companies US$5 billion through direct grants, tax breaks, cut-rate loans, cashable environmental credits, tax credits and rebates to buyers of his products. Counting subsidies from Canada and Europe, the government bankroll could be double that. Counting indirect subsidies — such as electric-vehicle-friendly infrastructure — the subsidies soar ever higher.

Speculators who bet on Musk’s ability to continue to get government backing have been well rewarded — Tesla’s stock value has skyrocketed, so much so that its market valuation topped that of BMW this year. Tesla stock is now valued at US$801,000 per car sold in 2016, compared to $26,000 per BMW sold and $5,000 per GM car sold.

Todayu2019s fake industry leader is Tesla

That inflated stock value rests entirely on government subsidies, as seen by what happened last year when Denmark decided to reduce its subsidies.In 2015, Tesla sold 2,738 cars in Denmark; in 2016, after the government said it would be phasing out subsidies, Tesla sold 176 cars, a drop of 94 per cent. Tesla’s car crash was even more pronounced in Hong Kong. After the government there cut its tax break on April 1, Tesla sales plunged from 2,939 in March to zero in April and five in May

The Tesla, in effect, is a beautifully engineered toy for the conspicuous-consumption market, accessible to millionaires but beyond the reach of the commercial market. Neither it nor most other electric vehicles have any place in a competitive, free-market environment. As an indication of how economically injurious these playthings are to society on the whole, the U.K.’s National Grid estimated that Britain would need to increase its peak generating capacity by 50 per cent to meet the government’s plans for electric vehicles, the equivalent of building 10 new nuclear plants.

The driver of the electric-vehicle industry — government fixation on global warming — has spurred even larger fake industries, led by wind turbines and solar photovoltaic cells. Neither they nor the many other anti-carbon inventions such as carbon sequestration plants are in any business sense “real.” The global renewable-energy industry, having squandered trillions of dollars building economically unjustifiable infrastructure, represents the greatest loss of wealth in the history of commerce.

The Tesla, in effect, is a beautifully engineered toy for the conspicuous consumption market

Fake industries have always been with us, but today’s scale is greater by at least an order of magnitude. The previous record holder for wasteful enterprise was the nuclear power industry, which even today, more than a half-century after its launch, still is not viable. Just last month, two heavily subsidized reactors nearly half-built in South Carolina were abandoned after US$9 billion had been spent on their construction, on the realization they would never be able to produce power competitively. Ontario is still paying for the demise of its nuclear industry a quarter-century ago, which bankrupted Ontario Hydro and cost the province its Triple A credit rating.

Fake industries prey on government’s weakness, like Charlie Brown with that football, to never let constant failure stop it from trying to pick winners. An Elon Musk predecessor, Malcolm Bricklin, in the 1970s convinced New Brunswick’s premier to back a sports car with gull-winged doors for export to the U.S. It went bankrupt after producing 2,900 cars. In the 1980s, Philip Sprung, a Calgary subsidy entrepreneur, convinced Newfoundland’s premier to grow cucumbers in a greenhouse for export to the U.S. Two years and $22 million later, it too went bankrupt. In the 1990s, Ballard Power Systems convinced governments to back hydrogen fuel-cell technology. Its stock, which topped US$120 per share in the year 2000 amid hype that it would revolutionize transportation, is now under $3.

Subsidy entrepreneurs like the Musks of the world — often self-deluded true believers — should be distinguished from the Bernie Madoffs, who are fakes within real industries, and who prey primarily and illegally on private investors. The Musks are fakes in fake industries who prey primarily on taxpayers, a time-honoured practice that remains legal.

I really like what they're doing at SpaceX. They're doing what NASA were unable to do for decades and using a fraction of the cost to get there. It's not that NASA were fools - instead they are a government organization, a large organization where it means that politics are important, both from politicians to direct their goals as well as within the organization.

Things like the Space Shuttle should have never been created. It's a typical government gig where you end up spending 10-50x the cost on something that amounts to a shitty compromise to appease office politics and some bureaucrats.

As for the subsidies, a lot of business is built upon the prospect of detecting politically favorable programs and then milking them - the politicians get cool headlines without using a penny of their own cash, they use tax payer money. The businessmen get money. Win-win.

I know I was part of a govt subsidy program which was solely to produce pro-immigration news. They paid a bunch of developers to produce stuff and then they wrote a big article on how the Middle Eastern immigrants are learning to develop stuff even though none were ever directly involved with any development. They did meet the development team and were briefly explained in layman terms what the development team was going to make. Then journalists were invited, developers were pressured to drop their names from the credits and to downplay their involvement. "Are you trying to pull the rug from under these immigrants?!" was what one person involved organizing the project said when a developer wanted to get full credit for his work.

Not that the immigrants did anything wrong, they had no part in any of it - it was a program machinated by the Department of Political Correctness and the journalists involved were well onboard with what and how they had to build the story.

Electric cars and all sorts of alternative everything projects seem to run with similar premise. Millionaires are given free money from government to do stuff, these create cool headlines that lead to finger pointing while praising the businessmen who use public funds for non-economic projects as saintly figures. Politicians are praised for having had the foresight to help them out too. Win-win.

_________________All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party

Well, "win-win" except for that fact that these electric cars were only "affordable" for as long as government subsidies were involved, and were impractical due to their limited range (batteries). Therefore they were not the primary auto for the owner. Once the subsidies are removed then only the well to do can afford them.So the electric cars are being built for the well to do (those that could afford them were they not subsidized).

Those "winning" are the wealthy purchasers and the builders like Musk.

Those "losing" are the taxpayers whose money was used to subsidize the wealthy (purchasers and builders).

_________________The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum